On 10-08-2016 08:39:26 +0800, Lei Zhang wrote: > 2016-08-09 13:58 GMT+08:00 Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org>: > > As a question to Lei, I'm wondering why you chose eselect compiler, and > > not gcc-config to manage the links. In a way, gcc-config is tailored > > towards gcc, but it does a lot of things also for the environment. With > > clang, from my experience, you just want it as drop-in replacement for > > gcc as it doesn't give you too much issues (on Darwin at least). > > In its current form, gcc-config specializes in handling different > versions of gcc. If we extend it to cover other compilers (and rename > it to cc-config as James suggested), should it handle different > versions of clang? What about different versions of icc? > > I'm just afraid gcc-config would become too complex that way, so I > prefer a simpler approach: let eselect-compiler be version-agnostic. > Then we can have clang-config to handle the versioning of clang, > icc-config to handle icc, etc.
Alright. As Zac pointed out, my gcc-config idea was a bad one. And it wouldn't work very well with icc and many other compilers as well. Reason I thought about it, is that I'd like to avoid setting CC/CXX/OBJC/OBJCXX/BUILD_CC/BUILD_CXX and whatnot. Currently, toolchain-funcs' tc-getPROG does some magic to produce TRIPLET-PROG kind of thing, and configure gets the triplet passed by Portage as well. I was hoping for it to find TRIPLET-clang at some point with all the tooling in place without "hard-overriding" CC in make.conf. Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
